Presenting his draft report on the post-2027 common agricultural policy (CAP) to a small number of journalists on Monday 29 June, MEP Norbert Lins (EPP, German) acknowledged that he had amended the European Commission’s initial proposal “substantially”, by removing the degressivity mechanism and easing the requirements on the capping of direct aid (see EUROPE 13890/8).
Norbert Lins explained that he had drawn up his draft report exclusively on the basis of the European Parliament report on the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028-2034. He fully supports Parliament’s proposal to ring-fence an agricultural budget of €433 billion over seven years and wants to maintain the CAP’s historic two-pillar structure. The first pillar would remain fully financed by the EU and dedicated to income support, resilience in the face of crises and direct payments. The second pillar would continue to rely on co-financing, targeting rural development, structural investment, climate action, agri-environmental measures and animal welfare. He is also defending the continuation of specific rural development programmes.
Seven key demands are at the heart of the draft report, Mr Lins explained.
Removal of degressivity. Norbert Lins removes the degressivity proposed by the Commission and introduces a new capping mechanism. Whereas the Commission had set a cap of €100,000 per holding, he is proposing a cap of €500,000 per natural person, combined with stronger redistribution rules.
Mandatory redistributive payment. The rapporteur is proposing a mandatory redistributive payment for Member States. The redistributed share would rise from 10% currently to 15%.
Stronger support for young farmers. Unlike the Commission, which is proposing a non-binding target of 6%, Norbert Lins wants to make it mandatory to allocate 8% of CAP first-pillar envelopes to support for young farmers.
End of age-related exclusions. Remaining faithful to an approach based on incentives rather than prohibitions, he is proposing to remove the age criterion. Farmers above the legal retirement age (over 65 or 67 depending on national systems) would remain eligible for CAP aid, whereas the Commission had envisaged excluding pensioners from 2032 onwards.
Earmarking the environment. Faced with the risk of distortions of competition, Norbert Lins suggests reintroducing budgetary earmarking to remunerate environmental and animal welfare-related services. No percentage has yet been set, as this will depend on the overall level of expenditure in the next MFF, which will be decided by the Member States.
Strict framework for farm stewardship. Whereas the new conditionality would be defined at national level under the Commission proposal, the rapporteur is advocating a clear European framework (a catalogue of permissible measures) in order to avoid divergent rules undermining a level playing field between farmers.
Risk management and irrigation. Lastly, Mr Lins proposes strengthening farm risk management tools and clarifying the rules on irrigation, considered indispensable in the face of multiplying heatwaves and the need to guarantee the Union’s food security.
Fierce debate on capping. During the presentation of this work in the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture, Dario Nardella (S&D, Italian) took the view that the draft report risked, in his opinion, “weakening the very nature of the CAP”. A development far from neutral, which could pave the way for a form of “creeping renationalisation”. For Mr Nardella, this would mean a gradual shift from a CAP based on common rules to a policy under which each state would be free to decide when and how to apply certain provisions. Despite these reservations, he acknowledged that the report constitutes a solid working basis (retention of social conditionality, clarifications provided on young farmers, the definition of beneficiaries, the types of support and the monitoring and control framework, as well as support for the processing of agricultural products).
On the sensitive issue of capping aid and redistributive payments, Dario Nardella adopts a nuanced position. He shares the objective of a fairer CAP, but considers that fairness cannot be limited to automatic mechanisms for capping or reducing payments. He welcomes the optional nature of the €100,000 cap per holding, considered more realistic than the Commission’s initial proposal. On the other hand, he warns against the risk of penalising structured professional holdings, those which invest, innovate and create jobs.
The Renew Europe group supported earmarking 35% of appropriations for agri-environmental schemes and maintaining mandatory degressivity, but with a higher threshold so as not to penalise farmers excessively.
On the issue of capping aid, the Renew Europe group said it understood “the sensitivity of German colleagues and of Member States in central and eastern Europe on this issue”.
Thomas Waitz (Greens/EFA, Austrian) considered that the Commission proposal on capping is “actually very good”. “One cannot explain to citizens why farmers would need more than €100,000 in income support”. In his view, the rapporteur’s draft (capping at €500,000 only for natural persons) “completely misses the point, because most beneficiaries are agricultural companies”. He therefore considers the approach very different from that of the Commission. He also believes that environmental, climate-related and animal welfare aid must be secured.
At the end of the debate, Norbert Lins insisted on the issue of capping aid and degressivity: “My approach does indeed include an element of mandatory degressivity with redistribution. But I am not doing what the Commission is doing, which, in the name of simplification, advocates an approach consisting in taking aid away from hundreds of thousands of farmers without clearly saying who benefits from it afterwards”.
He concluded by claiming that certain approaches in the Council of the EU’s position no longer really lead to a common agricultural policy, but to a logic of “everyone does what they want”. “That is not acceptable if we want to preserve a common CAP. It is therefore essential for Parliament to remain clear on its position. And even if we will have disagreements, we must keep in mind that our role is to defend the CAP as a genuinely common policy”.
Link to the draft report: https://aeur.eu/f/mmm (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)